Journalism Blog: Mawwige
Render unto Caesar those things that belong to Caesar; render unto god those things that belong to god. Many have taken this statement from the New Testament to be one of the oldest assertions of the separation of church and state.
The New Jersey State Supreme Court has recently ruled that same sex couples that wish to enter a committed relationship are entitled to the same rights and privileges as men and women who wish to enter into a heterosexual marriage. The matter that remains to be settled is whether these same-sex unions will be called marriages or something else.
Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage are based on the idea that a marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, for the express purpose of bearing and raising children.
Sacred…
In this country, we hold this ideal: that the state should not interfere with the free practice of religion, nor should the ideas or practice of religion control the decisions of the state.
If marriage is indeed a sacrament, a sacred thing, then our secular government has no real right to involve itself in the matter.
If a couple, of any orientation, wished to incorporate themselves and combine legal and financial assets and responsibilities, that is the concern of the state, and it should, as the supreme court decided in Lewis vs. Harris, treat all these unions fairly and equally.
But the state has no right to pronounce them married.
I would argue that the state government can only grant couples civil unions - personal contracts concerning the legal and financial matters of the household. Marriage is purely the realm of the church.
Couples should be entitled to form committed partnerships by contract, however, if they wished to pronounce themselves “married” if their own religious institution would approve it.
As Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, points out, churches would not be obligated to recognize marriages that did not meet their criteria, whether because of sexual orientation, religion faith or the choice not to have children. The state would not be obligated to honor unions that were not made legally binding.
Under this system, all couples would be treated exactly the same under law. In a sense, heterosexual couples already have this right, as they can enter a civil marriage simply by signing a contract. I personally was married this way, although we later chose to have our marriage blessed by the Catholic Church.
Interestingly enough, the church does not recognize my divorce, although the state of New Jersey is more than happy to acknowledge the end of our civil contract. The church says I cannot marry ever again, unless I get an annulment. Fortunately, I am not bound by law to live by the preference of a religious institution.
The holy sacrament of marriage belongs to the house of God. Some of God’s houses may let in same sex couples; some may not.
The civil union, taxes, health care and legal status belong to Caesar. Race, creed, color, and orientation are irrelevant. All are equally welcome and all are defined by the same name: Citizen.
The New Jersey State Supreme Court has recently ruled that same sex couples that wish to enter a committed relationship are entitled to the same rights and privileges as men and women who wish to enter into a heterosexual marriage. The matter that remains to be settled is whether these same-sex unions will be called marriages or something else.
Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage are based on the idea that a marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, for the express purpose of bearing and raising children.
Sacred…
In this country, we hold this ideal: that the state should not interfere with the free practice of religion, nor should the ideas or practice of religion control the decisions of the state.
If marriage is indeed a sacrament, a sacred thing, then our secular government has no real right to involve itself in the matter.
If a couple, of any orientation, wished to incorporate themselves and combine legal and financial assets and responsibilities, that is the concern of the state, and it should, as the supreme court decided in Lewis vs. Harris, treat all these unions fairly and equally.
But the state has no right to pronounce them married.
I would argue that the state government can only grant couples civil unions - personal contracts concerning the legal and financial matters of the household. Marriage is purely the realm of the church.
Couples should be entitled to form committed partnerships by contract, however, if they wished to pronounce themselves “married” if their own religious institution would approve it.
As Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, points out, churches would not be obligated to recognize marriages that did not meet their criteria, whether because of sexual orientation, religion faith or the choice not to have children. The state would not be obligated to honor unions that were not made legally binding.
Under this system, all couples would be treated exactly the same under law. In a sense, heterosexual couples already have this right, as they can enter a civil marriage simply by signing a contract. I personally was married this way, although we later chose to have our marriage blessed by the Catholic Church.
Interestingly enough, the church does not recognize my divorce, although the state of New Jersey is more than happy to acknowledge the end of our civil contract. The church says I cannot marry ever again, unless I get an annulment. Fortunately, I am not bound by law to live by the preference of a religious institution.
The holy sacrament of marriage belongs to the house of God. Some of God’s houses may let in same sex couples; some may not.
The civil union, taxes, health care and legal status belong to Caesar. Race, creed, color, and orientation are irrelevant. All are equally welcome and all are defined by the same name: Citizen.